California bill to take the right to bear arms away for alcohol crimes

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CrazySanMan

    2013'er
    Mar 4, 2013
    11,390
    Colorful Colorado
    California is considering a bill to take the right to bear arms away from those convicted of “serious alcohol-related crimes.”
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-14/california-eyes-new-group-disarm
    California State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) has an idea to help keep the good citizens of the Golden State safe: Disarm the drunks. If her recently submitted bill becomes law, those convicted of “serious alcohol-related” crimes would lose their right to keep and bear arms for ten years. While it’s true that firearms and intoxicants don’t mix well, this proposal – much like other “common sense” reforms in the state that we’ve covered – ignore the basic principle behind the Second Amendment. It’s a simple point, really. So why is it that so many politicians – and voters – seem to miss it?

    If passed, SB 55, simply titled: “Firearms: prohibited persons,” would grow the list of folks barred from owning a gun. Here are the misdemeanors it adds, along with the explanation of what each is (notably missing from the bill text):



    1. “Possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of Section 11357.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” – This deals with synthetic cannabinoid compounds.
    2. “Possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 11375 of the Health and Safety Code.” – This deals with cannabis.
    3. “Possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of Section 11379.2 of the Health and Safety Code.” – That’s Ketamine and any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing ketamine.
    4. “Section 191.5.” – That’s vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated: an accident, but still due to the general misconduct of the offender.
    5. “Subdivision (f) of Section 647.” – Anyone caught drunk or high in public.
    6. “Section 23152 of the Vehicle Code.” – These last two involve driving under the influence in general.
    7. “Section 23153 of the Vehicle Code.”
    8. To be added to the prohibited list, someone would need to be convicted of two of these crimes or two instances of the same one in three years, or get caught with a firearm or ammo during a ten-year prohibition already in place. And of course, in that last scenario, the ten-year period starts over.
     

    adit

    ReMember
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 20, 2013
    19,495
    DE
    CA is going to push SCOTUS to define that "shall not be infringed" is explicit, and invalidate all of the gun laws.
     

    FrankZ

    Liberty = Responsibility
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 25, 2012
    3,334
    We can only hope. Good originalist SCOTUS appointments are the single most import thing that DJT can do for this country... I'm willing to overlook a bunch of other crap if he continues to get this right.


    Aye

    Even give up my crumbs for this.
     

    dontpanic

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 7, 2013
    6,631
    Timonium
    Already done in MD. At least for handguns. You see it when you fill out a 77R.
     

    Attachments

    • 20181215_210246.jpg
      20181215_210246.jpg
      35.4 KB · Views: 370

    1841DNG

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 17, 2016
    1,143
    “Subdivision (f) of Section 647.” – Anyone caught drunk or high in public.

    Neither a lawyer nor a Californian, could this include bars or the bus stop next to them? Imagine hanging out at the bar with friends once a month and calling a cab responsibly but someone is out to get you.


    e.

    Just a stepping stone until they add automobile infractions to making one a prohibited person. ��

    Am I miss-remembering or did the New York proposal that required folks to turn in search history and social media passwords include something about certain traffic offenses being disqualifying?
     

    geda

    Active Member
    Dec 24, 2017
    550
    cowcounty
    CA is going to push SCOTUS to define that "shall not be infringed" is explicit, and invalidate all of the gun laws.

    Please Santa, I was really really good this year, and this is all that i have ever wanted... Well also for A-Bombs, B52s and surplus fighter jets to go C&R, but that can wait for next year :).
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,687
    Why stop there?

    Time to prohibit drunks from voting. Maybe restrict their right freely to assemble at bars, revoke their license to buy alcohol - it's a dangerous drug, access needs to be carefully restricted. Access to tobacco should be a matter of licensing as well, of course.

    It's for the children.

    Speaking of which, if you have a problem holding your drink, perhaps you should be prevented from reproducing. California already knows that alcohol and tobacco are harmful. Says so right on the packaging.

    Social media should be scrutinised to determine if your temperament is suitable to be trusted with operating a motor vehicle. Those are easily as dangerous as a firearm.
     

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    CA is going to push SCOTUS to define that "shall not be infringed" is explicit, and invalidate all of the gun laws.

    Hopefully after RBJ retires, and T45 has the opportunity to appoint another constitutionalist.

    For all the bellyaching we’ve had about SCOTUS passing on anything 2A post Heller, I for one am happy. Obamacare Roberts is not to be trusted. Until we have a solid 5, I’d rather things remain in limbo.
     

    swamplynx

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jul 28, 2014
    678
    DC
    California already knows that alcohol and tobacco are harmful..

    ... and coffee, and gas pumps, and whatever else those proposition 65 warnings deem cancerous.

    CA is sad. Growing up there not that many years ago, it was a fiscally conservative, tolerant (real meaning of the word) place. Now it is a poorly run socialist shit hole. Visiting home is sad. So much poverty amid so much wealth. The roads are some of the worst in the world, leave alone the country, and they don’t even have to deal with freezing weather in most places. High taxes, oppressed freedom, and socialism, for the sake of public services and “fairness,” that doesn’t even exist. What a nightmare.

    I’d never thought that I’d feel so free living in DC with low property taxes, ok income taxes, and decent 2A rights (thanks SAF), compared to CA.
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,774
    Baltimore County
    as long as citizens are willing to obey commands leaders/politicians/rulers will continue to give them.
    if you dont like the changes coming down the pipe, write someone a letter or make a call and see if you can get them to change their mind.
    writing letters and making calls is how we do it in America right?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,917
    Messages
    7,258,586
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom